VRIDAMBAL Vs. ANJALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiffs before the two courts below are the appellants herein.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title to the suit property and for permanent injunction against the defendants. According to the plaintiff, the items 1 and 2 of the suit and other properties originally belonged to the first defendant. Both the suit items bear the same survey number i.e., old S.No.110/6 and new S.No.520/9. Item-1 is an extent of 0.33 cents, while item 2 is 0.15 cents. Both together form the southern half of the entire survey number whose total extent is 0.96 cents. While so, under a registered sale deed dated 14.2.1983, the first defendant sold item 1 to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.6600/=. THE said property is mentioned as Schedule A in the sale deed. THE properties mentioned as Schedule B are offered as security which includes item 2 to the suit. As undertaking by the plaintiff he has also discharged the mortgage dated 11.6.1982 in favour of one Sivaraman. He also discharged the discharge receipt dated 17.4.1983 and took back the original mortgage deed. By another registered sale deed dated 7.7.1983 the plaintiff has purchased item 2 in the suit from the first defendant for a sale consideration of Rs.3000/=. Thus, both the sale deeds are true and valid and are fully supported by consideration.

(3.) AFTER the death of the defendant his legal heirs were impleaded and the 4th defendant filed an additional written statement taking a new plea that the suit properties are joint family properties consisting of himself, his brother and father and the first defendant was leading a wayward life and the sale in favour of the plaintiff is not for the benefit of the joint family and therefore the sales are not binding on them. The first defendant, spent the sale consideration sums fro immoral and illegal purposes. At any rate the plaintiff has not discharged the government loan and he has unjustly enriched himself.